Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in these cases?
In two cases in early April, immigrants appealed agency denials of relief from possible torture or other mistreatment if they were deported. The same two judges --- Trump judge Daniel Bress and George W Bush judge Carlos Bea – denied the appeals in both cases
What happened in these cases?
Yusleidy Del Carmen Martinez Morillo (“Martinez”) and her husband and minor son applied for relief from deportation to her native Venezuela, because of fear of persecution as a member of a “disfavored group.” The agency denied relief and she appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Judges Bress and Bea concluded that “substantial evidence” supported the agency’s findings and denied relief in Molina v Bondi. Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented.
Heydi Guadalupe Caceres Marquez (Caceres) and her minor child applied for relief from deportation to her native Honduras, also because of fear of persecution. The agency denied relief and Caceras appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Once again, judges Bress and Bea concluded that “substantial evidence” supported the agency’s findings and denied relief. Clinton judge Margaret McKeown dissented in Marquez v Bondi.
What was the rationale of Trump judge Bress and George W. Bush judge Bea?
In unsigned opinions in both cases, judges Bress and Bea took less than seven pages to review the evidence and rulings below and quickly concluded that “substantial evidence” supported them both.
Why did Judges Paez and McKeown dissent?
Judge Paez explained that the majority had ignored the “legal error” by the agency concerning Martinez’s membersip in a “disfavored group” as a basis for withholding of removal. The majority “erroneously concluded”, he wrote, that Martinez had to have a “leadership position” in the group, and “did not consider” important evidence concerning her activities in support of the opposition. The case should have been sent back, he concluded, for reconsideration.
Judge McKeown’s dissent focused on the agency’s decision that Caceres could be safely relocated to a different area within Honduras than where she had previously lived. The government “did not meet its burden,” she wrote, to show that the relocation would be “safe” and “reasonable.” Instead, she went on, the agency’s determination was improperly based on “speculation and conjecture,” which is forbidden by precedent. By denying Caceres’ petition, she concluded, the majority has improperly “lowered the government’s burden to the floor,” and “bends over backwards” to support the government’s position.
Why are the decisions harmful?
The rulings by Trump judge Bress and George W Bush judge Bea obviously harm the efforts of Yusleidy Del Carmen Martinez Morillo, Heydi Guadalupe Caceres Marquez, and their families to avoid deportation due to the harm they may face in their native countries. The rulings also set bad precedent on immigration issues, particularly concerning cases that relate to “disfavored group” and relocation issues. This is especially so in the Ninth Circuit, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.